State v. Richard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

80 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘ “The granting of a new trial for newly discovered evidence is in the trial court’s discretion. (State v. Larkin, 212 Kan. 158 , 510 P.2d 123 , cert. den. 414 U.S. 848 , 38 L. Ed. 2d 95 , 94 S. Ct. 134 .) A new trial should not be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence unless the evidence is of such materiality that it would be likely to produce a different result upon re-trial. (State v. Hale, 206 Kan. 521 , 479 P.2d 902 .) The credibility of the evidence offered in support of the motion is for the trial court’s consideration. (State v. Anderson, 211 Kan. 148 , 505 P.2d 691 ; State v. Larkin, [ 212 Kan. 158 ].) The burden of proof is on defendant to show the alleged newly discovered evidence could not with reasonable diligence have been produced at trial. (State v. Lora, 213 Kan. 184 , 515 P.2d 1086 ; State v. Arney, 218 Kan. 369 , 544 P.2d 334 .) The appellate review of an order denying a new trial is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion. (State v. Campbell, 207 Kan. 152 , 483 P.2d 495 ; State v. Anderson, [ 211 Kan. 148 ].)” ’ ””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Hobson · State v. Armstrong

2. ““Rebuttal evidence is that which contradicts evidence introduced by an opposing party .... [I]t may refute or deny some affirmative fact which an opposing party has attempted to prove. It may be used to explain, repel, counteract or disprove testimony or facts introduced by or on behalf of the adverse party .... The use and extent of rebuttal rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be reversed unless it appears the discretion has been abused to a party’s prejudice.” State v. Richard, 235 Kan. 355 , Syl. ¶ 1, 681 P.2d 612 (1984).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 11 Kan. App. 2d 244 - In Re Estate of Moe · 17 Kan. App. 2d 623 - State v. Cramer

3. ““A change in venue in a criminal case lies within the sound discretion of the tidal court. The burden of proof is cast upon defendant to show prejudice in the community which will prevent him from obtaining a fair and impax'tial trial. Media publicity alone has never established prejudice per se. Defendaxit must show prejudice has reached the community to the degree it is impossible to get an impartial juxy.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. McNaught · State v. Wood